Pigtail Catheters Used for Percutaneous Fluid Drainage: Comparison of Performance Characteristics

Purpose: To compare the performance characteristics of various single-lumen all-purpose pigtail drainage catheters.

Materials and Methods: The following parameters were compared: flow rates between catheters of the same size, whether changing the fluid viscosity has any effect on catheter comparisons, the effect on flow of leaving an open three-way stopcock in the drainage pathway, the tendency of the catheters to kink, and catheter patency after kinking, as measured according to flow. All-purpose 8.0-, 8.3-, and 8.5-F (collectively referred to as 8-F); 10.0-, 10.2-, and 10.3-F (collectively referred to as 10-F); and 12.0-F pigtail drainage catheters from three manufacturers were evaluated. Data were compared by using two-tailed t tests after normal distributions were confirmed. P < .05 was considered to represent a significant difference.

Results: At comparison of the 8-F catheters, the C.R. Bard catheters demonstrated better flow rates than the Cook and Boston Scientific devices. Among the 10-F catheters, there were no significant differences in the flow rates of fluid with viscosity equivalent to that of water between the C.R. Bard and Boston Scientific catheters; however, both these catheter types demonstrated significantly (P < .05) better flow rates than the Cook devices. Among the 12-F catheters, the C.R. Bard catheters demonstrated significantly (P < .05) better flow rates than the other two catheter types. Changing the fluid viscosity caused no changes in comparison results. In all catheter groups, the presence of a stopcock significantly (P < .05) impaired flow. None of the evaluated catheters demonstrated a clear advantage in terms of patency or susceptibility to kinking.

Conclusion: At comparison of the in vitro performances of catheters from different manufacturers, the C.R. Bard 8.0-F and Cook 10.2-F catheters had comparable flow rates, and flow rates through the C.R. Bard and Boston Scientific 10.0-F catheters were comparable to flow rates through the Cook and Boston Scientific 12.0-F catheters. Varying viscosity had no effect on comparisons of catheter flow rates; however, a stopcock between the vacuum source and the catheter was noted to impair flow rates in all brands and sizes of evaluated catheters.

© RSNA, 2006

References

  • 1 Lee KH, Han JK, Kim KG, et al. Clogging of drainage catheters: quantitative and longitudinal assessment by monitoring intracatheter pressure in catheters and rabbits. Radiology 2003; 227: 833–838. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hoyt AC, D'Agostino HB, Carrillo AJ. Drainage efficiency of double-lumen sump catheters and single-lumen catheters: in vitro comparison. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1997;8:267–270. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lee SH, vanSonnenberg E, D'Agostino HB, Tanenbaum L. Laboratory analysis of catheters for percutaneous abscess drainage. J Minim Invasive Ther 1994;3:233–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Park JK, Kraus FC, Haaga JR. Fluid flow during percutaneous drainage procedures: an in vitro study of the effects of fluid viscosity, catheter size, and adjunctive urokinase. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;160:165–169. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Haaga JR, Weinstein AJ. CT-guided percutaneous aspiration and drainage of abscesses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1980;135:1187–1194. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gobien RP, Stanley JH, Schabel SI, et al. The effect of drainage tube size on adequacy of percutaneous abscess drainage. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1985;8:100–102. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 vanSonnenberg E, Mueller PR, Ferrucci JT Jr. Percutaneous drainage of 250 abdominal abscesses and fluid collections. I. Results, failures, and complications. Radiology 1984;151:337–341. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mueller PR, vanSonnenberg E, Ferrucci JT Jr. Percutaneous drainage of 250 abdominal abscesses and fluid collections. II. Current procedural concepts. Radiology 1984;151:343–347. Google Scholar
  • 9 American College of Radiology. Percutaneous catheter drainage of infected intra-abdominal fluid collections. In: ACR appropriateness criteria. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1999. Google Scholar
  • 10 Gazelle GS, Mueller PR. Abdominal abscess: imaging and intervention. Radiol Clin North Am 1994;32:913–932. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 vanSonnenberg E, Ferrucci JT, Mueller PR, Wittenberg J, Simeone JF. Percutaneous drainage of abscesses and fluid collections: technique, results, and applications. Radiology 1982;142:1–10. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bouali K, Magotteaux P, Jadot A, et al. Percutaneous catheter drainage of abdominal abscess after abdominal surgery: results in 121 cases. J Belge Radiol 1993;76:11–14. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 vanSonnenberg E, Wing VW, Casola G, et al. Temporizing effect of percutaneous drainage of complicated abscesses in critically ill patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;142:821–826. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bufalari A, Giustozzi G, Moggi L. Postoperative intraabdominal abscesses: percutaneous versus surgical treatment. Acta Chir Belg 1996;96:197–200. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lang EK, Springer RM, Giorioso LW, Cammarata CA. Abdominal abscess drainage under radiologic guidance: causes of failure. Radiology 1986;159:329–336. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rothlin MA, Schob O, Klotz H, Candinas D, Largiader F. Percutaneous drainage of abdominal abscesses: are large-bore catheters necessary? Eur J Surg 1998;164:419–424. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lambiase RE, Deyoe L, Cronan JJ, Dorfman GS. Percutaneous drainage of 335 consecutive abscesses: results of primary drainage with 1-year follow-up. Radiology 1992;184:167–179. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 18 American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for specifications and performance of image-guided percutaneous drainage/aspiration of abscesses and fluid collections (PDAFC) in adults. In: Practice guidelines and technical standards, 2003. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003; 319–326. Google Scholar
  • 19 Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Standards of Practices Committee. Quality improvement guidelines for adult percutaneous abscess and fluid drainage. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1995;6:68–90. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jaques P, Mauro M, Yankaskas B, Piggott B. CT features of intraabdominal abscesses: prediction of successful percutaneous drainage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;146:1041–1045. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Belair M, Gianfelice D, Lepanto L. Computed tomographic abscessogram: a useful tool for evaluation of percutaneous abscess drainage. Can Assoc Radiol J 1998;49:336–343. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pfitzner J. Poiseuille and his law. Anaesthesia 1976;31:273–275. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Simpson G, Roomes D, Heron M. Effects of streptokinase and deoxyribonuclease on viscosity of human surgical and empyema pus. Chest 2000;117(6):1728–1733. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2006